SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1177

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Mr. Vinay Prakash Singh – Petitioners
VERSUS
Sameer Gehlaut & Ors. – Respondents
In the Matter of :- Shivinder Mohan Singh – Applicant
Miscellaneous Application No. 1902 of 2022 (@ Diary No. 33420 of 2022) With Intelocutory Application No. 157792 of 2022 (Application For Clarification/Direction) In Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 2120 of 2018 In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20417 of 2017
Decided On : 14-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv.
For the Non-applicant : Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Mishra, Adv. Ms. Devna Arora, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Hota, Adv. Mr. Varad Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Astha Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Gauri Goburdhan, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv. Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv. Ms. Mansi Taneja, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, AOR Mr. Faisal Sherwani , AOR

The judgment emphasizes the interpretation and application of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in determining the commencement of a convict's imprisonment term.

Headnote:

Contempt - Custody - Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - (2001) 6 SCC 311, State of Maharashtra and Another versus Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali - (1980) 2 SCC 559, Niranjan Singh and Another Versus Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, contemnor No.10, filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification on the commencement of his 6-month imprisonment term as ordered by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the applicant's contentions and dismissed the application, stating that the custody undergone by the applicant in connection with another case cannot be considered as custody in the contempt of Court case.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant's period of imprisonment should be deemed to have commenced from 03.02.2020 instead of 22.09.2022.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the judgments in (2001) 6 SCC 311 and (1980) 2 SCC 559 to determine the commencement of the applicant's imprisonment term.

Final Decision: The miscellaneous application was dismissed, and pending application(s), if any, were disposed of.

JUDGMENT

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. This Miscellaneous application No.1902 of 2022 is filed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2120/2018 in SLP (Civil) No.20417/2017. The applicant in this application is contemnor No.10 (Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh). The contempt petition culminated in an order dated 15th November, 2019. We need only refer to the record of proceedings dated 15th November, 2019 which indicates how the matter was dealt with by the Court.

    "ii) Malvinder Mohan Singh, Director of Oscar Investments Limited and Diretor of RHC Holding Private Limited (Contemnor Nos.9 and 12) and Shivinder Mohan Singh, Director of Oscar Investments Limited and Director of RHC Holding Private Limited (Contemnor Nos.10 and 13) have knowingly and willfully violated the orders of this Court dated 11.08.2017, 31.08.2017 and 15.02.2018 as continued on 23.02.2018. Therefore, we hold both of them guilty of committing Contempt of this Court. We give one chance to them to purge themselves of the contempt. We, direct that in case each of the contemnors deposits a sum of Rs.1170.95 crores in this Court within eight weeks from today then we may consider dealing with them in a lenient manner, while imposing sentence."

2. Thereafter, we may notice direction No.2, from the order dated 03.02.2020, which is as follows:-

    "Direction No.2:

    Both contemnors Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh are present in Court and they have been brought from judicial custody as they are in jail in respect of some other case. On the oral request made by learned Counsel for Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, we direct Naresh Kumar, ASI who has brought them to this Court to ensure that both the detenus are permitted to meet their family members till 2.00 P.M., within the Supreme Court premises.

    Shivinder Mohan Singh has filed an affidavit. We are not fully satisfied with the same. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel, prays for some time to file a more detailed affidavit. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh are directed to file fresh proposals as to how they want to purge themselves of the contempt. They may file an appropriate application as to how they would like to discharge their liability which is the subject-matter of the contempt petition, positively by 05.03.2020 with advance copies to all the parties and the matter be listed before the Court on 16.03.2020.

    We also direct the jail authorities to ensure that Malvinder Mohan Singh can meet Ms. Vijaylakshmi Menon, Adv. and Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. (DMD Advocates) 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013 and Shivinder Mohan Singh, be permitted to meet Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. 606-B, Adiswar Apartments, 34, Ferozshah Road, New Delhi – 110 001 for four hours on two occasions between this period and they will escort them to the offices of the counsel."

3. Thereafter the matter came to be finally disposed of by order dated 22.09.2022. We need only notice the following part:-

    "30. In the premises, we pass the following directions:

    (a) Contemnor Nos. 9 and 10 are sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment and pay fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each within four weeks from today. In case of default of payment of fine, the contemnors shall undergo further imprisonment of two months."

4. The present application has been filed on the following basis. It is, inter alia, stated that the applicant was already in the custody of this Court in the Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2120 of 2018 from 03.02.2020 itself when he was brought from Jail No.7, Tihar Jail, New Delhi to this Court. It is further stated that the applicant had never applied for bail after 03.02.2020 and he thus has been in continuous custody of this Court. Thereafter the cause for moving the present application has been set out which is as follows:

    "That the Applicant is now constrained to move the present application for clarification as Paragraph 30 (a) of the Order dated 22.09.2022 does not specify the date of commencement of the term of imprisonment


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top